&lt;p&gt;Retrospective analysis of an intraoperative aberrometry database: a study investigating absolute prediction in eyes implanted with low cylinder power toric intraocular lenses&lt;/p&gt;

Cionni, Robert J.; Breen, Michael G.; Hamilton, Cody; Williams, Ravaughn

doi:10.2147/opth.s191887

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The percentage of eyes with a mean absolute prediction error of 0.5 D or less was higher with IA (89.4%) compared to preoperative calculations (85.4%), a significant difference of 4%. This difference is similar to the differences reported by Cionni et al, 5 Cionni et al, 6 and Woodcock et al 9 of 6%, 6.9%, and 1.8%, respectively. These three studies used multiple surgeons, differing preoperative formulas, and larger datasets, which could explain the differences observed in our study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…5 A separate study using low-power toric IOLs also reported that IA resulted in a lower prediction error (SE) than preoperative planning. 6 However, other studies have reported no significant differences in prediction error (SE) between IA and preoperative planning. [7][8][9] Previous studies investigating PRA using IA and preoperative planning have reported significantly reduced PRA with IA compared to preoperative planning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Clinical Outcomes of Monofocal Toric IOLs Using Digital Tracking and Intraoperative Aberrometry

Blaylock¹,

Hall²

2021

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate clinical outcomes of a toric IOL using digital tracking (DT) and intraoperative aberrometry (IA). Methods This was a retrospective, single surgeon study examining 151 eyes of 106 patients. Inclusion criteria were subjects who presented with visually significant cataracts (or as a candidate for clear lens extraction) and were implanted with a toric intraocular lens. Spherical equivalent prediction errors for IA and preoperative planning were calculated and compared. Preoperative and postoperative refractive data and monocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) were also collected at 3 months postoperatively. Results Postoperative actual residual refractive astigmatism with IA was 0.50 D or less in 140 eyes (92.8%) and was 0.50 D or less in 88 eyes (58.3%) with back-calculations based on preoperative planning. The absolute spherical equivalent prediction error was 0.50 D or less in 135 eyes (89.4%) for IA compared to 123 eyes (85.4%) for preoperative planning. Postoperative monocular UDVA was 0.10 logMAR or better in 124 eyes (82.1%) and 0.00 logMAR or better in 90 eyes (59.6%). Postoperative CDVA was 0.10 logMAR or better in 147 eyes (97.4%) and 134 eyes (88.7%) were 0.00 logMAR or better. Conclusion The results demonstrate that toric implantation with DT and IA can provide excellent refractive and visual outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical Outcomes of Monofocal Toric IOLs Using Digital Tracking and Intraoperative Aberrometry

Blaylock¹,

Hall²

2021

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A couple studies of large datasets reported that IA resulted in a higher percentage of patients with absolute prediction error 0.5 D or less compared to preoperative planning. 13 , 14 However, there are also reports of minimal difference in absolute prediction error between preoperative planning and IA. 15–18 In addition, the percentages of eyes with absolute prediction error of 0.5 D or less was greater in this study for both IA and preoperative planning compared to other studies of post-LVC eyes with non-trifocal 6 , 19 and trifocal 7 , 8 IOLs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Refractive Outcomes Following Trifocal Intraocular Lens Implantation in Post-Myopic LASIK and PRK Eyes

Blaylock¹,

Hall²

2022

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To assess refractive outcomes of a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) in post-myopic laser refractive surgery eyes. Methods This was a retrospective chart review of 35 eyes (21 patients), with history of laser refractive surgery, who were implanted with a trifocal IOL. Surgeon’s standard procedure included femtosecond laser (FLACS), digital registration, and intraoperative aberrometry (IA). The primary outcome measure was absolute prediction error. Secondary measures were refractive outcomes, postoperative residual astigmatism (PRA), monocular uncorrected visual acuity at distance (UDVA; 4m), intermediate (UIVA; 60cm), and near (UNVA; 40cm), and monocular best-corrected visual acuity at distance (BCVA; 4m). Results At 3 months postoperatively, 71% and 68% of eyes had absolute prediction error 0.5 D or less with IA and preoperative planning respectively, which was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The PRA was 0.5 D or less in 91% of eyes with IA and 56% of eyes with preoperative planning. The PRA differences between IA and preoperative planning were statistically significant (p < 0.002). The percentage of eyes 20/20 or better for monocular UCVA, BCVA, UIVA, and UNVA was 29%, 77%, 78%, and 66%, respectively. Absolute prediction error 0.5 D or less was significantly higher in post-LASIK eyes versus post-PRK eyes (p < 0.003), at 85% and 56% of eyes, respectively. Conclusion Implantation with a trifocal IOL can provide acceptable refractive and visual outcomes with minimal residual astigmatism in post-myopic LASIK and PRK eyes.

show abstract

“…As more modern IOL formulas improve, many of the pre-existing IA studies are becoming less informative. While IA has been shown to improve refractive accuracy for many patients, 4 , 15 , 16 most comparisons that achieved statistical significance are comparisons with non-standardized aggregates of formulas or specifically comparing to “older” formulas such as Holladay 1, Holladay 2, and SRK/T. Comparison with newer formulas has shown that IA is equal or worse than the Barrett Universal II or Hill-RBF.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Time Utilization and Refractive Prediction Enhancement Associated with Intraoperative Aberrometry Use During Cataract Surgery

Christopher¹,

Patnaik²,

Ifantides³

et al. 2021

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To evaluate the time cost of intraoperative aberrometry (IA), to compare IA prediction error to the prediction error associated with conventional formulas using preoperative calculations (PC) and evaluate when IA provides clinically relevant benefit. Methods: This is a retrospective study of eyes that underwent cataract phacoemulsification surgery with IA at an academic eye center. IA versus PC prediction error were compared amongst various preoperative and intraoperative characteristics. Additionally, a dichotomous variable indicating clinically relevant benefit of IA, where IA absolute prediction error was less than 0.5D and PC absolute prediction error greater than 0.5D, was associated with clinical factors. Results: Five hundred eyes of 341 patients were included in the analysis. The quantitative difference between mean absolute prediction errors for IA versus PC was between 0.0D and 0.03D in most subgroups. For the 11.0% of eyes that had clinically relevant benefit to IA, the multivariable model identified the following strongest predictors: prior myopic corneal refractive surgery (Odds ratio (OR) 3.9, p<0.01 for myopic LASIK/PRK, OR 5.5, p=0.01 for radial keratotomy), toric or multifocal/EDOF lens implantation (OR 2.7, p=0.03 for toric monofocal lenses, OR 3.1, p=0.01 for EDOF/multifocal lenses), and short and long axial lengths (p<0.01). On average, IA implementation added 3.0 minutes to surgery (p<0.01). Conclusion: For greatest likelihood of a clinically meaningful improvement in outcomes despite increased surgical time, surgeons and patients should consider using IA for eyes with extremes in axial length, eyes with prior myopic corneal refractive surgery, or when implanting lenses with toric or extended-depth-of-focus/multifocal properties.

show abstract

<p>Retrospective analysis of an intraoperative aberrometry database: a study investigating absolute prediction in eyes implanted with low cylinder power toric intraocular lenses</p>

Cited by 17 publications

References 15 publications

Clinical Outcomes of Monofocal Toric IOLs Using Digital Tracking and Intraoperative Aberrometry

Clinical Outcomes of Monofocal Toric IOLs Using Digital Tracking and Intraoperative Aberrometry

Refractive Outcomes Following Trifocal Intraocular Lens Implantation in Post-Myopic LASIK and PRK Eyes

Time Utilization and Refractive Prediction Enhancement Associated with Intraoperative Aberrometry Use During Cataract Surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About